Zhinzela Qyli has completed the Faculty of Medicine and specialization in Microbiology in the University of Tirana, Albania. She is lecture in the Nursing Department of Fan S Noli University, Korca and is following the doctoral school in the Faculty of Technical Medical Sciences, University of Medicine, Tirana, Albania
Statement of the problem: Hospital surfaces are potential sources of health care–associated infection. Contamination of hospital surfaces by bacteria is increasingly recognized . In recent years, a variety of interventions have been shown to be effective in improving cleaning and disinfection of surfaces.\r\nThe purpose of this study was to identify the microbial pollution of the hospital surfaces and to demonstrate the importance of hospital surfaces contamination in the transmission of nosocomial infections.\r\nMethodology & Theoretical Orientation: A total of 640 samples were taken from the surfaces of the hospital. A swab soaked in nutrient broth was used to collect samples. Swabs were streaked in Blood agar. These culture plates were incubated at 37°C for 24 hrs. After incubation identification of isolates was performed.\r\nFindings: The study revealed that the prevalence of bacterial isolates was 27.18%. Prevalence of samples contaminated with Staphylococcus.aureus was 48.85% , E.Coli 43.10%, Pseudomonas 1.14% and Saprophytes 6.89%.\r\nConclusion & Significance: The microbial contamination of surfaces in the hospital is high.\r\nHigh prevalence of microbial isolates with Staphylococcus aureus and E.Coli are considered as a indicator of poor hygiene in the hospital. \r\n
Karine De Mari, D.V.M., is Medical Manager/Medical Direction for Small Animals at Virbac (France). As a Medical Manager, she is involved in Phase IV trials and collaborations with Universities and Specialists internationally. She developed her expertise in Virbac thanks to different positions in R&D, Product Innovation and Strategic Marketing. Before she joined Virbac, she was a veterinary practitioner for Small Animals. She graduated from the Veterinary School of Alfort, and is certified from the CESAM (biomedical statistics).
Statement of the problem: The Canine Leishmaniasis vaccine CaniLeish® (Virbac, France) composed of purified L. infantum Excreted Secreted Proteins (ESP) was marketed in 2011 in Europe. Six years later came a second vaccine based on a recombinant Q Protein (LetiFend®) (Leti, Spain). The protective immune response to Leishmania is cell-mediated. While solid data have been published on the Th1 cell-mediated immune (CMI) response elicited by CaniLeish® [Ref.1-5], no data is available yet regarding the cellular immunity induced by LetiFend®. The purpose of this study was to control and compare the elicitation of a memory CMI response by the two vaccines using a Leishmanin Skin Test (LST) in mice. Methodology & Theoretical Orientation: Two groups of five SPF (OF1 strain) mice were injected subcutaneously twice at 7 day-interval (D0; D7) with 2x50µl of CaniLeish® (group1) or LetiFend® (group2). On D14, all the mice received a foot-pad intradermal inoculation of leishmanin (right tested foot) and an injection of NaCl0.9% (left control foot). The DTH (Delayed-Type Hypersensitivity) reaction was assessed on D14 and D15, before and 24 hours after leishmanin/NaCl injections, through the measurement of the foot-pad volume (mL.10-2). The test was considered as positive when the volume variation was superior or equal to 3mL.10-2. Findings: In group1, 4/5 mice were DTH positive, and one was close to positivity while in group2, none (0/5) was positive (Table1). The LST consists in the intradermal inoculation of leishmanies, and the measurement of the corresponding intradermoreaction (assessed here by the increase of pad volume due to inflammation), consequence of the DTH response caused by the specific recognition of the parasite antigens. This test is a physiological approach to assess the development of Leishmania-specific (Th1) CMI response. Conclusion: In this experimental study, CaniLeish® induced a positive DTH reaction in mice, while LetiFend® did not